issue48 [savior第六次作业]

lsyunxUID: 2443450

issue 48 The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten.

Does the study of history emphasize too much attention on individuals, as the speaker maintains? In my view, the answer varies from case to case. In the academia, the most significant events and trends can be attributable to the key individuals and, therefore, the study of history should pay more attention to them. However, in the sociopolitical events, the key figures and the masses both contribute profoundly.

When it comes to the academia, the individuals are responsible for the significant events. As known to us all, the research is an activity of the mind. Whether one can make significant contribution depends on the individual's raw intelligence, the personal education backgrounds and experience and the outsiders will not understand his work before he publicizes it, such as, a significant theory, not to mention help him. For example, Copernicus's new theory that the earth revolves around the sun is completely the efforts of himself. Newton is single-handed responsible for his invention of Calculus. Einstein's theory of relativity is production of his genius. None of the profound advancements above has relation to the groups. In short, the events and trends in academia are always the achievements of key individuals, and the study of history should focus on the famous few.

However, the masses and the key individuals both play a vital role in the sociopolitical events and trend. History is always proceeding in such a pattern that the masses' wills and desires provide the ultimate impetus for the events, and the famous few exerts their excellent quality such as sagacious, insightful , judicious judgment to accelerate the realization of these wills and desires. The function of the masses as a determinant demonstrates itself in historical experiences that the careerist such as Hitler who violate the people's will invariable failed at last. And equal important is the famous figures because through their leadership the fulfillment of the people's wills may encounter fewer frustrations. For example, Without Franklin D. Roosevelt's the New Deal Program, the U.S. may step out the Great Depression much slowly. Therefore, the study of history should place emphasis on both the masses and the key figures.

Finally, in some cases, the significant events and trends can be completely attributable to the large groups. For instance, the great historical architectures engineering, such as the pyramids and the Great Wall, would never be accomplished unless thousands of labors and architects' hard work day and night. None stone would step up another only through the monarchs' illusions. And under these circumstances the focus of history studies should undoubtedly be given to the groups of people.

In sum, the conclusion the most significant events and trends in history were made possible only by the key figures hinge on concrete things is reliable only when it comes to the events in academia. And in most cases, the masses' function is indispensible in history events and history study.

[ 本帖最后由 lsyunx 于 2008-3-12 07:44 编辑 ]